The defendant shall be innocent.

On April 24, 2012, the Defendant extracted trees of KRW 13gs (hereinafter “the instant trees”) equivalent to KRW 2 million at the victim’s market price within the land owned by Gangseo-si C (hereinafter “victim’s land”) on April 10, 201, and transferred the instant trees to F. The Defendant transferred the land owned by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

Defendant

The summary of his defense counsel's assertion is that the defendant believed that he has ownership of the trees of this case, and thus, theft is not established since there is no awareness about the other person's nature of property.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the trees of this case were planted on the land owned by the victim, and there was no marks (such as a named seal) to recognize that the ownership of the trees of this case was held by persons other than the victim; ② The victim prevented the Defendant from excavating the trees of this case from doing so and reported it to the police, it is doubtful that the Defendant was not a theft of the trees of this case, which are another’s property.

However, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003). The following other circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., the Defendant, from G around September 201.